For decades now, large parts of the game industry have been striving to create games that are more meaningful—games that can speak to the human condition and tell an impactful story that's deeper than "remember when I shot that guy?" At a DICE Summit presentation today, Twisted Metal designer David Jaffe made an impassioned argument that such efforts have been misguided, and a huge waste of the industry's time and resources.

Jaffe led off by clarifying that he wasn't against all kinds of storytelling in games—he had lots of respect for titles like Batman: Arkham City and Skyrim that allow for highly personal, player-created stories that can be as deep as a good novel. He also wasn't arguing for a return to the Atari 2600 days, where graphics were abstract and most titles didn't have identifiable characters or environments at all.

But Jaffe did argue vociferously against "games that have been intentionally made from the ground up with the intent and purpose of telling a story or expressing a philosophy or giving a designer's narrative." Because no matter how hard we want to fight it, Jaffe said, games just aren't meant for this kind of storytelling.

He brought up Saving Private Ryan, and director Steven Spielberg's stated desire to make the famous Normandy Beach scene to be as close to a documentary as possible, with none of the usual movie trappings. It's a powerful choice that lets the viewer filter the scene through the historical context of their knowledge and their life, Jaffe said. But in a game that actually places you in D-Day, Jaffe said, the only thing you're really able to think about is, "How the fuck do I get to that rock? How do I get to the exit?"

Jaffe thinks the industry obsession with telling grander stories started in the early '90s, when CD-ROM and consumer-level 3D technology allowed for cinematic camera angles and voice acting. At that point game makers started to get "seduced by the power and language of film" he argued, thinking that "because they started to look like movies... they should feel like movies."

But in chasing movies, games lose something that's unique to the medium, Jaffe said. The biggest successes in video games—titles like Modern Warfare's multiplayer, Skyrim, Guitar Hero, and Angry Birds, make a huge impact without ever pushing a developer-driven story on the player. The game industry should respect the success we've had in entertaining the world, he argued, and stop trying to force more from what has historically been the worst medium for expressing complex narrative ideas.

"It's like the world's best chef, instead of working in a fine restaurant, decides to start working at McDonald's," Jaffe said of the constant effort to try to force strong developer-directed narratives into games. In other words, if you think you have something significant to say about philosophy or human nature, stick with the media that have proven they're suited to imparting that message effectively.

It very much depends on the game. I reallly doubt that the Final Fantasy franchise would be anywhere without it's story. And Blizzard's turning Warcraft's storyline into a rather profitable comics and novels line.

David Jaffe's comment has merit.... but it should be taken with a healthy dose of NaCl.

Absolutely agree. I don't pay attention to any game story. I've beaten Mass Effect 2 something like 7 times and I can barely tell you what's going on. Big robots bent on killing all life...that's what I picked up.

I guess I generally agree with this guy. But I think the problem in the industry is overly exagerated, there have been plenty of well told stories in games. I think games will continue to get better at telling stories as the industry gets better at it. Also, I think an author who wants to tell a story also has to consider his audience when choosing a medium. If he chooses a book then it will only reach a certain audience. Choosing video games will reach a different one.

Jaffe thinks the industry obsession with telling grander stories started in the early '90s, when CD-ROM and consumer-level 3D technology allowed for cinematic camera angles and voice acting. At that point game makers started to get "seduced by the power and language of film" he argued, thinking that "because they started to look like movies... they should feel like movies."

There is truth in that. I was a huge fan of Wing Commander 1 and 2. Then they got Luke Skywalker for WC3 and it went downhill and died one game later. It was partly because "building for story" is usually the antithesis of "building for fun gameplay", and partly because of the huge increase in development costs. Origin was bankrupt and had to be rescued by EA. Yeah, those story-oriented games really helped out!

So in the end, I agree with his statement that building games from the ground up to tell a story is a bad idea. Building a game from the ground up to be FUN and adding a story around that? Stellar.

Unfortunately, the bi-line on this is going to draw away from his actual message to the generalized "no stories" angle.

I absolutely disagree. Which are the games that last in our memories? The games that stand the test of time and continually get recommended even after they're past their shelf life? It's either a) games with a unique/novel/breakthrough game mechanic or b) games with a compelling story. Everything else falls by the wayside and is supplanted by the next thing to come along in that genre.

What would Bioshock have been without its story? Mass Effect? Every jRPG ever made?

I could see how the designer of Twisted Metal can decide that's a valid position, but that franchise got where it is on gameplay. Story is the other way to "make it big" in the industry, and I'd hate to see studios disregard it.

How does one publisher's attempt to tell a story impact another's to make a completely different kind of game? This is not a zero sum game, an either/or scenario. The thread title is absurd: of course games should bother trying to tell a story if that's what the publisher wants to do. But if they don't, then don't. Pretty easy, methinks.

Maybe there's a place for both Michael Bay and David Lean in video games. When I read:

Quote:

He brought up Saving Private Ryan, and director Steven Spielberg's stated desire to make the famous Normandy Beach scene to be as close to a documentary as possible, with none of the usual movie trappings. It's a powerful choice that lets the viewer filter the scene through the historical context of their knowledge and their life, Jaffe said. But in a game that actually places you in D-Day, Jaffe said, the only thing you're really able to think about is, "How the fuck do I get to that rock? How do I get to the exit?"

I hear Uwe Bolle saying "I like showed a thousand people being killed in that scene and nobody in any of the screenings got upset about any of those people losing their lives. They just thought the explosion was cool. Film is obviously not a good medium for conveying drama."

Do you not remember GOTY, twice, classic Half Life? The muliplayer was an afterthought, but the single player was (though linear) was VERY story-driven. It had an AWESOME setup for story and engaged the user to play more. Even, to a degree, it's expansion Opposing Force had a compelling story - though not as long. For RTS it was the original C&C series with the storyline and live actors basing your gameplay around a story.

I really don't think any game has come close to that ability of completely immersing the player. It seems to be a lost art. Nowadays, it's gameplay first and the story is put to the wayside - give the CoD and BF series: they both are excellent multiplayer shoot 'em ups, but their individual single player campaigns have really weak stories.

Hmmm ... I think Bioshock without its narrative and ideas would have been totally forgettable. In the Thief series story made it interesting. In fact the only thing I really liked about Thief 3 was the story. Not everything needs a story but their are exceptions where story is important.

Well, I prefer a story driven game. Always have. Remember back in the mid-90s? You could play Doom II and run around, shoot things, find the blue key, got to the blue door, and exit. It was fun in a very mindless way, but for me not very satisfying. Like eating MacDonalds.

Then there was Marathon, in which you were stuck in a power struggle between 3 ship-level AIs while trying to defend your massively huge colony ship from invading alien slavers. Awesome. The gameplay was great, but it was the story that really made Marathon special.

So, yeah, games should bother to tell a meaningful story.

HOWEVER... I'm gonna have to go with the Stephen King attitude about story here. If you are telling a story in writing or in gameplay or on screen, then you need to focus on story, dammit, STORY. Characters are part of the story and should be integrated in. Anything not story can freely be left on the cutting room floor. Focus on story, and themes, messages about the human condition, whatever will automatically come out. Try to shoe-horn those elements in and it almost always comes at the expense of story.

Of course, the best story driven games are the RPG ones (especially Action RPGs, for me... never could get into others because of the gameplay) because not only is there great story involved, you get to be involved in making it your own character's story.

What I appreciate about Mr. Jaffe's pronouncement is starting the discussion of storytelling in games from a new angle. I doubt he feels as strongly about the topic as he seems to come across. I think what he's referring to are games that feel an obligation to have a story when it's not appropriate or necessary, leading to something that feels false, forced, or tacked on. However, to say storytelling has no place in games makes no sense. Whether the game promotes a user-created narrative, presents an "interactive movie", or simply creates an environment and mood that serves as the story, each game will be experienced differently by each player. Whatever the value proposition for gamers (story or otherwise), the market will determine what games are valuable enough to be successful.

I think there is something to be said when a small studio like double fine raises 1.2 million dollars in a day for old time point-and-click games.... That is, there is a market for people like myself who want a deeper storyline and experience than just blowing stuff up and making my digital character drop his scrotum in someone's face.

I happen to like a story line (not necessarily cgi cutscenes) in my games, but perhaps it's because I'm getting old now that I'm in my early 30's lol. I typically play rpgs, action, platformers, and fighting games. I don't expect much of a story in a fighting game although some have done an ok job over the years. Action and platformers though I do expect some basic story narrative, but how much of a story depends on the game. Mario games are typically pretty light on story, but do enough to tell you why you're doing things. RPGs on the other hand I expect to be heavy on story because of the very nature of that genre of games although I do get tired of some developers pushing overly dramatic love stories.

I'll also add that a good story can setup gamers to be ready to fork out their hard earned money for a sequel. The first Infamous and Darksiders are both games that by the end of them I was ready to buy the sequel just to see where things go from there. Neither of their stories were super deep, but they got the job done and had a good twist to them.

I forgot Twisted Metal even existed until I looked up your name. Will I ever forget RPGs like the Final Fantasy series, Chrono Trigger/Cross, Aidyn Chronicles, etc? No. Please don't impress your game design ideals on the rest of the world - gaming would be a barren wasteland.

Stick to your mindless vehicular combat games and I'll stick to my RPGs and jRPGs.

Almost every game I play is story-driven. It all started when I first played Dragon Warrior and Final Fantasy when I was back in elementary school... Playing games without story tends to get really boring, really fast for me.

Every Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Dragon QuestMorrowind, Oblivion AND Skyrim (which does indeed have a story!)Baldur's Gate IIPlanescape: TormentFallout, Fallout 3, Fallout New VegasWorld of Warcraft (I enjoyed the story up through WotLK)Every Silent Hill and Resident EvilDiablo 1 and 2TorchlightMetroid, Super MetroidCastlevania 1,2 and 3Zelda 1,2 and 3

This is a fairly incomplete list of the games that I've spent a lot of time with and very much enjoyed. The last 5 lines weren't as heavy on story as the ones above them... but story was still present!

I am currently playing Deus Ex : Human Revolution. The story keeps me interested in the game. Without the story (and its a good story so far), I don't think this game would have done as well. Its fun to sneak and level up, install augmentations left and right, but it wouldn'T be enough. Deus Ex 2 has a poor storyline and didn't fare as well.

Witcher 1 and 2 are other examples. The games are driven by its story. Sure the combat is fun and enticing, but without the story to drive it, its pointless. I have to play it a second time to experience a different story arc.

The first time I played Mass Effect 1, the story and characters kept me going. Mass Effect 2 was not as deep in that department, as well as lacking RPG elements that made the first game better.

Uncharted 1,2 and 3 have interesting storylines and characters. Combat and platforming is fun, but take the story away, those games are useless. My wife watched me play though all 3 games for the story. She didn't care about the combat and platforming, she finds this boring. But the story of Uncharted 3 had her sitting on the couch for 2 days straight as the story unfolded. Same for UC1 and 2.

Heavy Rain, completely STORY driven. And its an amazing story.

GTA San Andreas, I remember the game mostly for the story. Driving around and shooting stuff was fun, but got boring. The story missions kept me going.

Half-Life series, as someone else mentioned, is very story-driven. Many gamers are anxiously waiting for HL2 Ep3, or HL3 not to kill combine and hit headcrabs with a crowbar, but to know the end of the story. (at least for me, that's my reason) I've re-played that game 5 times, the story is that good.

The list goes on, but I'll save the trouble of listing them all.

I have played games that have little story (racing games, sports games, etc) but my most memorable and beloved series have storylines and characters that are etched in my memory.

Jaffe only seems to be able to look at it from one perspective, the one in which the story forms the basis of the game, instead of the gameplay being the basis. In his perspective he has a point, as it is probably not the best way to go to create a good game.

However, the other approach of building a good story around already good gameplay has been test and tried and has succeeded in quite some cases. For this reason I disagree with Jaffe. He does not take the games in mind that try to see how the story can enhance the immersion without harming the gameplay.

Best Games I've played are Deus-Ex, Half-Life (1 & 2), The Fallout Serie, Portal (and a lot of LucasArt Adventure games) etc.

Those weren't memorable for their technologies but thanks to their stories...I still remember fondly going trough Deus-Ex (the original) and being confronted with the final choice and being exited and engaged in what was going to happen.

Sure Prince of persia, WoW and a lot of others are interesting and fun in the moment, but not memorable, they didn't make me think like those that were telling you a story. The gamer needn't agree with the ideas presented to him by the devs, but it never hurts to extend ones horizon and think about things with another's person point of view.

While its okay to have fun (Angry, MW3 etc.) I regret that their aren't more producers taking a risk in telling a good story. Lets hope the consolidation of internet distribution will help indies provide us some good ones.

Little surprised to see such a strong swear word in an Ars article - even if it is quoted. Seems to lower the tone somehow.

Anyway, the whole premise of this piece is absurd. Sweeping statements like that have no value except to get people to attend your talks and read your articles because they are sensationalist generalisations which don't reflect reality.

I generally prefer games which tell a story and several RPGs and adventure games have had as strong an emotional impact from their stories as any other medium be it book, film, etc.

In fact story is often the primary motivation for playing a game for me (obviously it needs to be fun too!). Not every one wants grinding games or multiplayer games which often feel like they are pointless and have no progression no matter how many points you score or achievements you unlock. I was about to say this wasn't suprising given the kind of game DICE makes but then I remembered that they also made Mirror's Edge which was a much more interesting story based game than any of the recent Battlefields.

Then again I'm quite happy to while away the time on smartphone games with minimal story. So what was my point again? Er, well I guess that this whole dicussion is pointless lol.

Yes, or I'll stop buying consoles. I had a choice b/w Assassin's Creed on PS3 or PC, and my PC has a top end graphics card, but I went for the PS3 version because I love the plot and my friends can watch it with me on the big screen while I play

I absolutely disagree. Which are the games that last in our memories? The games that stand the test of time and continually get recommended even after they're past their shelf life?

Chess, go, shogi, backgammon, bridge, poker, monopoly, scrabble?

This isn't about board games, they are a different beast altogether. A particular point to note is that the earliest video games hail from the post world war 2 era by definition. Give it a a thousand years and you can compare Go to Pong. Furthermore there'd undoubtedly a language barrier point here and a cost of production one, but I am too lazy to think these points out thoroughly at the moment .

Christ I wish we could all just forget about monopoly though The number of fake smiles I've had to pull when someone's been all 'hey lets play monopoly' and I'm like 'yeah that's a great idea person who I don't want to hate me *I'll kill you for putting me through this.*'

darkshade wrote:

I'd like to see Jaffe take his own advice and remove all of the awful 'plot' from the Twisted Metal games. Same goes for any fighting game.

Blazblue, would like a word.

Also while I agree that fighting game story modes often suck I disagree that removing the plot is a good idea.

Case in point, playing Sagat is a lot more evocative knowing that he is the 'God' of Muay Thai, that he killed Dan's dad and was beaten by a teenage Ryu.

If he didn't have these plot pieces, he'd just be a 7ft guy who shouts Tiger.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.